Are all men created equal? When will they be treated equally?

just me said:
The essence of God being part of you bothers you? And others? I cannot help that. The Bible states God is love. Maybe it is beyond comprehension to some. Allow me to share what I know. If you do not believe as I, that is your choice. I'm not trying to convert anyone here. I took a half-wild dog nobody else could handle about a year and a quarter ago. I have gained his love and his trust without trying to beat anything into him. We now understand each other to a point. He pushes his bone toward me and looks at me, expecting a hand when there seems to be nothing to grab any longer.

I have found the story in the Bible to be the same for me. Does this mean you will not give ear to what I have to say because you do not believe in God?
Click to expand...
Not really that it bothers me, or that I don't believe you.

I appreciate your personal truth and your personal standpoint-- as an Unitarian Universalist myself. And I certainly have no intention to demean or question what God has done to you in your life.

But your faith is not universal; and the issues of equality are generally universal, believers and nonbelievers all alike. I may or may not believe in this particular God, but I personally don't think that changes how equal we are.
Does it mean faith cannot be involved into this discussion? No, but limiting it around that (and to a specific God no less) gives a subjectivity that have a risk of turning ugly.

Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Last edited:
Flavus Aquila said:
Agreed.

Are all created equal? And either way should all be treated as equal? And either way what would be the benefits/disadvantages of treating accordingly?
Click to expand...
Personally speaking;
1) I have discussed to it above. It seems not.
2) Personally I think we should-- but there are a lot of fine details. Should we treat people with disabilities the same as normal people? Should we treat criminals just like we treat non-criminals? There are but two questions that will create a lot of variety.

To me human cannot help but see differences and box things in easy and manageable categories, for the sake of survival-- BUT that doesn't mean the lens we are using or the standards we are judging things with cannot be improved.
3) Benefits would be....

hmm. One would be the advancement of mankind as a whole. Given that right now a lot of people are restricted from various advancements and growth; opening the opportunities seems likely to help individuals if not groups of presently disenfranchised people as a whole.
Another would be....at least the ideal is an increased peace; due to an increased respect and a decreased amount of superiority and (to some extent) us vs them mentality. Especially for a lot of people living under threat and oppression in a precarious situation.

4) Disadvantage would be a great change of status quo in many layers. For better or worse. And the reaction against it.
We -are- seeing it now with the MRAs against feminism, the popularity of Donald Trump / bipartisan politics in particular, cases like Kim Davis, etc.
And that's just the easier denominators (race, gender, sexuality)
 
Trifoilum said:
Personally speaking;
1) I have discussed to it above. It seems not.
2) Personally I think we should-- but there are a lot of fine details. Should we treat people with disabilities the same as normal people? Should we treat criminals just like we treat non-criminals? There are but two questions that will create a lot of variety.

To me human cannot help but see differences and box things in easy and manageable categories, for the sake of survival-- BUT that doesn't mean the lens we are using or the standards we are judging things with cannot be improved.
3) Benefits would be....

hmm. One would be the advancement of mankind as a whole. Given that right now a lot of people are restricted from various advancements and growth; opening the opportunities seems likely to help individuals if not groups of presently disenfranchised people as a whole.
Another would be....at least the ideal is an increased peace; due to an increased respect and a decreased amount of superiority and (to some extent) us vs them mentality. Especially for a lot of people living under threat and oppression in a precarious situation.

4) Disadvantage would be a great change of status quo in many layers. For better or worse. And the reaction against it.
We -are- seeing it now with the MRAs against feminism, the popularity of Donald Trump / bipartisan politics in particular, cases like Kim Davis, etc.
And that's just the easier denominators (race, gender, sexuality)
Click to expand...
Perhaps a problem with treating equal, is that it can restrict some and burden others; that it can deflate achievement/ability and inflate mediocrity/non-ability/non-actualisation.

Reactionism might be caused by the perception that equality is inequitable.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Perhaps a problem with treating equal, is that it can restrict some and burden others; that it can deflate achievement/ability and inflate mediocrity/non-ability/non-actualisation.

Reactionism might be caused by the perception that equality is inequitable.
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly, but I think some part of it (especially the latter) is based on a somewhat superficial perspective.

As in, for the latter, a lot of people thinking this way sees just what is happening and what was happening and not the contributing factor (the biggest examples are the idea that black people and/or women are intellectually inferior, ignoring that there -are- a lot of gap between white men in academia compared to women / black people in general at that time)

for the former, a significant part to me seems to be the human mistake of seeing the act of balancing as the act of oppressing.
 
Trifoilum said:
I agree wholeheartedly, but I think some part of it (especially the latter) is based on a somewhat superficial perspective.

As in, for the latter, a lot of people thinking this way sees just what is happening and what was happening and not the contributing factor (the biggest examples are the idea that black people and/or women are intellectually inferior, ignoring that there -are- a lot of gap between white men in academia compared to women / black people in general at that time)

for the former, a significant part to me seems to be the human mistake of seeing the act of balancing as the act of oppressing.
Click to expand...

I think that perception of oppression might also be an issue. So much politics seems to stir resentment against one's own situation (even if it be pretty good) by drawing attention to the fact that some few are in an even better situation. Somehow, the fact that others are better off becomes part of a narrative that one is oppressed.

It is a kind of balancing act, (but perhaps a different metaphor would fit better), that sexism and racism can only be addressed by implicitly, or explicitly finding fault (and thereby implicitly/explicitly oppressing) that another sex/race fares better/is given more/etc. To say that women are unfairly restricted in careers, is to imply that men are unfairly enabled in careers. It seems that to accept a status-quo is unjust to some; to challenge the status-quo is unjust to others. I don't think there is a good solution. Either external influences artificially improve the situation of people on the lean side of statistical average, which draws away from people on the statistically abundant side of statistical average (left-leaning); or you just leave everyone to their own devices and try to facilitate people being either content with their situation, or to have the freedom (unassisted) to try to pursue their desired situation (right-leaning).
 
just me said:
Stories tell so much. I love stories. Thank you for your kind words.

What do I mean? Shall the hand say to the foot, "I have no need of thee?"

Everyone cannot be the king or queen; but I add this: not everyone can be a pawn.
Click to expand...

Beautiful response. Just me - you are a superstar!
 
I figure we have plenty of time, so leave it if you have no desire to cover all the bases.
@Isabella, you are too kind. There were teachers crossed my path I should thank...
 
Last edited:
Consider the ant. Ant colonies have been described as super organisms, because the way they work together appears to be a unified colony. Their social structure is a model for all to follow.
 
just me said:
Consider the ant. Ant colonies have been described as super organisms, because the way they work together appears to be a unified colony. Their social structure is a model for all to follow.
Click to expand...

Ants also enslave other types of ants, and the slave ants some times rebel and neglect or even slaughter the offspring of their captors.
 
[video=youtube;YriSaEvC9Wg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YriSaEvC9Wg[/video]

[video=youtube;Mb4pmcrI4d4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb4pmcrI4d4[/video]

:m179:
 
just me said:
Consider the ant. Ant colonies have been described as super organisms, because the way they work together appears to be a unified colony. Their social structure is a model for all to follow.
Click to expand...

I think it is not a model for all to follow, but a model to follow for those who choose to follow.
 
invisible said:
I think it is not a model for all to follow, but a model to follow for those who choose to follow.
Click to expand...

Working together doesn't mean much without context anyway. Some pretty nasty things have been accomplished by people working together. Cooperation just makes bad motives even worse.
 
if humans were ants they would do things not involving chatting on internet forums or interpreting holy books.
 
There are many types of ants, as there are peoples. One should interpret much easier how I would not use a colony of ants that would be a bad example. Need I look up a friendly ant colony? Or should I focus on the bad?

Let everything be interpreted for the benefit and building up of the body.
 
Nothing is created equal but I believe its better to address differences and similarities when speaking in idealistic or conceptual terms. Men are created as equally as the perception of the observer allows them to be viewed. What is important is withholding your judgement until you have a clear picture of the concept, in this case a person. Until people are able to do this as a society, real equality is unobtainable.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
If the Great Spirit has desired me to be a white man he would have made me so in the first place. He put in your heart certain wishes and plans; in my heart he put other and different desires.
Each man is good in the sight of the Great Spirit. It is not necessary for eagles to be crows. Now we are poor but we are free. No white man controls our footsteps. If we must die, we die defending our rights.
Sitting Bull - Teton Sioux
 
just me said:
There are many types of ants, as there are peoples. One should interpret much easier how I would not use a colony of ants that would be a bad example. Need I look up a friendly ant colony? Or should I focus on the bad?

Let everything be interpreted for the benefit and building up of the body.
Click to expand...

Ants aren't really friendly or bad, they're just ants. Their cooperation is not for some kind of goodness or moral health, it's for survival.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top